Comments on: Climate Change Considerations http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/25/climate-change-considerations/ Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day... Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:03:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Bill Muehlenberg http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/25/climate-change-considerations/comment-page-1/#comment-1204 Bill Muehlenberg Mon, 30 Oct 2006 10:05:56 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/25/climate-change-considerations/#comment-1204 Thanks David But you still have not countered the facts and arguments in question. The scientific community is agreed that slight climate change (warming) has occurred over the past century. Unanimity stops there. There is disagreement about how much of this is man made, how much is just normal weather variation, and what predictions can be made about it all. Even your last quote from the NOAA looks very tentative and cautious indeed. Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch Thanks David
But you still have not countered the facts and arguments in question. The scientific community is agreed that slight climate change (warming) has occurred over the past century. Unanimity stops there. There is disagreement about how much of this is man made, how much is just normal weather variation, and what predictions can be made about it all. Even your last quote from the NOAA looks very tentative and cautious indeed.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

]]> By: David Sturdy, Launceston http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/25/climate-change-considerations/comment-page-1/#comment-1110 David Sturdy, Launceston Fri, 27 Oct 2006 07:49:48 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/25/climate-change-considerations/#comment-1110 Hi Bill, I am not rejecting the argument because of its source, in fact quite the opposite. Both the National Academy of Sciences and the NOAA uphold the idea of man made climate change and I can't find any evidence on either of their websites that support the view of Driessen. 'In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations (including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences) - and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [1], and explicitly endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change consensus.' Wikipedia 'GLOBAL TEMPERATURES ARE UP 0.7 - 1.4 degF OVER PAST 100 YEARS MOST OF THE WARMING OVER THE PAST 50 YEARS IS LIKELY TO BE DUE TO GREENHOUSE-GAS INCREASES Confidence Index=8/10 BOTTOM LINES - THE VAST MAJORITY SCIENTIFIC VIEWPOINT * The issue is a real one * The first signs of human-caused climate change have likely occurred * Some degree of further changes appears inevitable * Exactly where (regions), when (rate of change), how much (magnitude) is hard to predict * Human-caused climate change would be slow to reverse' NOAA David Sturdy, Launceston Hi Bill,
I am not rejecting the argument because of its source, in fact quite the opposite. Both the National Academy of Sciences and the NOAA uphold the idea of man made climate change and I can’t find any evidence on either of their websites that support the view of Driessen.

‘In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations (including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences) – and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [1], and explicitly endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change consensus.’
Wikipedia

‘GLOBAL TEMPERATURES ARE UP 0.7 – 1.4 degF OVER PAST 100 YEARS
MOST OF THE WARMING OVER THE PAST 50 YEARS IS LIKELY TO BE DUE TO GREENHOUSE-GAS INCREASES Confidence Index=8/10
BOTTOM LINES – THE VAST MAJORITY SCIENTIFIC VIEWPOINT

* The issue is a real one
* The first signs of human-caused climate change have likely occurred
* Some degree of further changes appears inevitable
* Exactly where (regions), when (rate of change), how much (magnitude) is hard to predict
* Human-caused climate change would be slow to reverse’
NOAA

David Sturdy, Launceston

]]> By: Bill Muehlenberg http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/25/climate-change-considerations/comment-page-1/#comment-1108 Bill Muehlenberg Fri, 27 Oct 2006 05:27:47 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/25/climate-change-considerations/#comment-1108 Thanks David But you commit a common logical fallacy here, known as the genetic fallacy. You reject an argument because of its source. The facts presented by Driessen, and the arguments that he makes, still need to be dealt with. Simply wishing they will go away because you do not like their origin is hardly refuting a position. Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch Thanks David

But you commit a common logical fallacy here, known as the genetic fallacy. You reject an argument because of its source. The facts presented by Driessen, and the arguments that he makes, still need to be dealt with. Simply wishing they will go away because you do not like their origin is hardly refuting a position.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

]]> By: David Sturdy, Launceston http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/25/climate-change-considerations/comment-page-1/#comment-1094 David Sturdy, Launceston Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:00:20 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/25/climate-change-considerations/#comment-1094 'Paul Driessen is Senior Fellow, Atlas Economic Research Foundation Senior Fellow, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) Senior Fellow, Frontiers of Freedom Institute Senior Fellow, Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow is a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit organization whose stated mission is to promote free market solutions to environmental problems. According to its Web site, CFACT provides "a positive alternative to major environmental groups like Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and Friends of the Earth" [1]. CFACT produces online articles and radio segments on environmental and consumer subjects. In addition, CFACT coordinates the work of affiliate chapters on college campuses across the United States. A large proportion of CFACT’s funding comes from corporations in the energy and automobile industries, as well as conservative foundations. Its financial backers include: * The Exxon Mobil Corporation, which has given $257,000 to the organization since 1998 [2]. In 2003, Exxon gave $25,000 specifically to support research on "Climate Change Issues" [3]. * The Chevron Corporation: $60,500 between 1994 and 1998 [4]. * The DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund: $25,000 in 1997 [5]. * The U.S. Council on Energy Awareness, which is funded by nuclear power and uranium companies [6]. * The conservative Carthage Foundation ($200,000 in 2002) and Sarah Scaife Foundation ($75,000 in 2001), which are both controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife. The Sarah Scaife Foundation is financed by the Mellon industrial, oil and banking fortune' Wikipedia David Sturdy, Launceston ‘Paul Driessen is Senior Fellow, Atlas Economic Research Foundation Senior Fellow, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) Senior Fellow, Frontiers of Freedom Institute Senior Fellow, Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise

The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow is a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit organization whose stated mission is to promote free market solutions to environmental problems. According to its Web site, CFACT provides “a positive alternative to major environmental groups like Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and Friends of the Earth” [1]. CFACT produces online articles and radio segments on environmental and consumer subjects. In addition, CFACT coordinates the work of affiliate chapters on college campuses across the United States.

A large proportion of CFACT’s funding comes from corporations in the energy and automobile industries, as well as conservative foundations. Its financial backers include:

* The Exxon Mobil Corporation, which has given $257,000 to the organization since 1998 [2]. In 2003, Exxon gave $25,000 specifically to support research on “Climate Change Issues” [3].
* The Chevron Corporation: $60,500 between 1994 and 1998 [4].
* The DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund: $25,000 in 1997 [5].
* The U.S. Council on Energy Awareness, which is funded by nuclear power and uranium companies [6].
* The conservative Carthage Foundation ($200,000 in 2002) and Sarah Scaife Foundation ($75,000 in 2001), which are both controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife. The Sarah Scaife Foundation is financed by the Mellon industrial, oil and banking fortune’
Wikipedia

David Sturdy, Launceston

]]> By: Ewan http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/25/climate-change-considerations/comment-page-1/#comment-1066 Ewan Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:25:45 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/25/climate-change-considerations/#comment-1066 I heard a scientist recently on BBC world news say that human induced global warming was as certain as the "fact of evolution". Enough said really. Ewan McDonald, Victoria I heard a scientist recently on BBC world news say that human induced global warming was as certain as the “fact of evolution”. Enough said really.

Ewan McDonald, Victoria

]]>